Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[UWHabs]

I do think ideally it would be nice if civs at least had something in their core civ ability carry through ages. If you just take the 2 types of a civ, and America only gets the antiquity Expansionist and antiquity Economic legacies and tree, you do lose something from them. It's almost like going back to the civ 3 days where there were only a couple traits available.

Now, again, whether that's the direction they go or not, I dunno. At least with that, it's not necessarily adding any extra art assets, and for the most-part, all it would be is a little copy-paste of some modifiers and then a little bit of scaling balance. Maybe America gives you 50 gold per resource in antiquity, 100 in exploration, and they boost it to 150 or 200 in modern. Obviously there's some civs where you'd have to create something new (Japan can't overbuild anything in antiquity). Again, is that enough combined with city names to make playing in America out of their age good enough? I'm not sure either. It slightly depends on if they market this mode as like a slight alternate fun mode, or if they market it as like a true core alternate way to play the game, with all the balance aspects in consideration.

 

[McSpank01]

I do think ideally it would be nice if civs at least had something in their core civ ability carry through ages. If you just take the 2 types of a civ, and America only gets the antiquity Expansionist and antiquity Economic legacies and tree, you do lose something from them. It's almost like going back to the civ 3 days where there were only a couple traits available.

Don't they already? Don't you get a bunch of traditions carry over? Plus you get any UB and constructables from the previous age. Isn't the whole point that you get to carry a bunch of traits across ages?

 

[UWHabs]

Don't they already? Don't you get a bunch of traditions carry over? Plus you get any UB and constructables from the previous age. Isn't the whole point that you get to carry a bunch of traits across ages?

That's more for the "playing a civ earlier". Like, yeah, I have a lot less problems with, say, Maya not having much else to their kit beyond basic abilities in later eras, because you'll have a few of your UQ and you have the traditions as well. But for playing America in antiquity, assuming you don't move all their traditions to unlock in antiquity, then they'd have a lot less to them.

 

[Dotsworthy]

Having left VII on the back burner for several months I decided to have a go with some of the new content packs, and was surprised just how much fun I was having playing it. Then I got to the end of the antiquity age. I don't think I would miss civ switching if it was removed but I think it takes place at a point where the game falls apart for me.

The transitions between ages grinds your momentum to a halt. Not only do you have a civ switch, with no map to look at to make decisions, but you then return to your map with a whole different set of city states, resources moved about, a new tech and civics tree which you can't look at in the antiquity age in case you want to plan ahead, all your cities are back to towns, and a big list of legacy bonuses to decide on. It genuinely feels like loading up a save from a few months ago and trying to work out what the hell you were doing.

I'm sure there are issues people have with the exploration and modern era but the lack of momentum is a real killer. If you only had the civ switching and none of these I think it would feel more bearable.

 

[disjointaccount]

I'm having big trouble with imagination when people mention modern America. Because it's logical that it should go this way: Rome-France (Spain, Portugal)-any modern country in south or north America. All native Americans should have end in exploration era, unfortunately.

I think you can look at it two ways. The first is who most directly led into a new empire being formed, for example the Normans conquering England and kicking off the new monarchy. The second is who was on the land before the new empire came to be (the Anglo-Saxons the Normans conquered). Both the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons could be considered as having given way to England in one sense or another, and by the same token, both the British empire and a whole host of Native American peoples could be considered predecessors to America.

 

[MutilationWave]

I'm having big trouble with imagination when people mention modern America. Because it's logical that it should go this way: Rome-France (Spain, Portugal)-any modern country in south or north America. All native Americans should have end in exploration era, unfortunately.

All the descendents of Native Americans (both Americas) would disagree. Where are the Maya today? Well a bunch of them are in Guatemala and surrounding areas. Just because Guatemala isn't a major world power shouldn't mean these people are discounted.

Some people act like these games are supposed to be history simulators. In fact, the opposite is true. Civilization is, at its core, a fantasy game that uses real world history as the base of the worlds we create and influence through our play.

If you want to play a game that plays out as close to real world history as possible, go ahead, I hope you enjoy it. The fun for me is the "what if?" aspect instead.

 

[Sekou]

Having left VII on the back burner for several months I decided to have a go with some of the new content packs, and was surprised just how much fun I was having playing it. Then I got to the end of the antiquity age. I don't think I would miss civ switching if it was removed but I think it takes place at a point where the game falls apart for me.

The transitions between ages grinds your momentum to a halt. Not only do you have a civ switch, with no map to look at to make decisions, but you then return to your map with a whole different set of city states, resources moved about, a new tech and civics tree which you can't look at in the antiquity age in case you want to plan ahead, all your cities are back to towns, and a big list of legacy bonuses to decide on. It genuinely feels like loading up a save from a few months ago and trying to work out what the hell you were doing.

I'm sure there are issues people have with the exploration and modern era but the lack of momentum is a real killer. If you only had the civ switching and none of these I think it would feel more bearable.

This! Age Transitions ARE the problem with VII- not Civ switching. That being said, I'm sober enough on this topic to understand that Firaxis can't reasonably undo the Ages mechanic because it ties everything together 'under the hood' as it were. Continuity option has helped, though.

 

[Krikkit1]

Having left VII on the back burner for several months I decided to have a go with some of the new content packs, and was surprised just how much fun I was having playing it. Then I got to the end of the antiquity age. I don't think I would miss civ switching if it was removed but I think it takes place at a point where the game falls apart for me.

The transitions between ages grinds your momentum to a halt. Not only do you have a civ switch, with no map to look at to make decisions, but you then return to your map with a whole different set of city states, resources moved about, a new tech and civics tree which you can't look at in the antiquity age in case you want to plan ahead, all your cities are back to towns, and a big list of legacy bonuses to decide on. It genuinely feels like loading up a save from a few months ago and trying to work out what the hell you were doing.

I'm sure there are issues people have with the exploration and modern era but the lack of momentum is a real killer. If you only had the civ switching and none of these I think it would feel more bearable.

Looking at the map should be a key part of the UI in any point of the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Looking at the map should be a key part of the UI in any point of the game.

Considering age transition regenerates some parts of the map, I wouldn't say that's hard requirement. But yes, it would be better to be able to see your antiquity map and other info like buildings, current yields, etc.

 

[Sagax]

I do think ideally it would be nice if civs at least had something in their core civ ability carry through ages. If you just take the 2 types of a civ, and America only gets the antiquity Expansionist and antiquity Economic legacies and tree, you do lose something from them. It's almost like going back to the civ 3 days where there were only a couple traits available.

No need to go as back as Civ 3. “Only a couple of traits available” is exactly what America is in Civ 6 until late game, and that’s what the audience in question is asking for. And as you brainstormed, Civ 7 America’s core ability can already function pre-Modern, though some number tweaking will be warranted (and on that front, they already have the framework with “____ per Age” bonuses - something I think is still underutilized).

There are, of course, plenty of questions without clear answers:

1. How to handle the unique civic trees.
2. How to handle traditions for non-Anqtiquity civs.
3. Whether everlasting civs should remain a self-contained environment, or they can be allowed to mingle with the current civ-switching gameplay (up to the player’s preference and settings).
Etc.

Personally, I’m more intrigued by how FXS may tackle these instead of going “ahh, too many questions” and turning away.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No need to go as back as Civ 3. “Only a couple of traits available” is exactly what America is in Civ 6 until late game, and that’s what the audience in question is asking for. And as you brainstormed, Civ 7 America’s core ability can already function pre-Modern, though some number tweaking will be warranted (and on that front, they already have the framework with “____ per Age” bonuses - something I think is still underutilized).

There are, of course, plenty of questions without clear answers:

1. How to handle the unique civic trees.
2. How to handle traditions for non-Anqtiquity civs.
3. Whether everlasting civs should remain a self-contained environment, or they can be allowed to mingle with the current civ-switching gameplay (up to the player’s preference and settings).
Etc.

Personally, I’m more intrigued by how FXS may tackle these instead of going “ahh, too many questions” and turning away.

I don't think it will be hard to find answers with some pretty simple basis:

• It's an optional mode, not intended to be balanced.
• Iterative development is the king. Start with the most simple implementation and if there will be interest, add some glitter later.

So, for example, I wouldn't expect unique civic trees outside the age. Too many work, too many questions (like about wonders), too little gain. On the other hand, traditions increase already big difference between early and late civs, so at some point of development it could make sense to add "glimpse into future" traditions for later civs.

 

[Crashdummy]

Alright. But let's for a second image that it's possible.

Hypothetically, if the game is turned around without catering explicitly to those that hate "civ switching", what does that mean? If whatever they're planning at the moment doesn't satisfy the people who really hate, but the game recovers regardless, what does that mean?

I means enough people accepted the changes. It wouldnt be the first franchise that i liked, took a different move that i liked and i stopped playing it, while the franchise continue

It would be sad, because Civilization is the last franchise of my youth that wasnt broken in my eyes yet

But games destiny dont depend on if i like them or not

That being said, now you answer me, what do you think it means that Civ 7 had the worst launch in the entire franchise and Firaxis is doing so many things to change core features?

 

[Snowchild]

They're responding to feedback. It doesn't appear in the majority of Steam negative reviews - therefore it's a minority of the Steam negative reviews. However, it's still mentioned in a significant portion of them so why would they not react to that? The original vision of the game doesn't need to be compromised, and just because they're responding to feedback doesn't mean it's a U-turn, pivot, desperate or reacting to "poor sales or player numbers". If a significant amount of players are interested in retaining their original Civ throughout the ages, then they'd be stupid to ignore it. I'm happy they're going to do it, I'll be playing both the 'original vision' as well as the 'one Civ' mode. This game is going to have a very long life, any talk of "ending support" is senseless in my opinion. The game sold well enough, has enough players, and will only continue to sell more and grow more as time goes on - just like Civ V & VI. 9 months of continuous updates plus the commitment of continuous updates leading into next year with the "Firaxis Feature Workshop" does not indicate support ending in any way, shape or form.

They’re scrambling to respond to feedback and adding in these features, many of which are the opposite of their original vision specifically because many of their design choices didn’t land and were quite poorly received. This was already admitted in one of their dev diaries

I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that the game sold “well enough” and has enough players when all estimates put its sales on its most popular platform far below Civ VI (with no basis for assuming consoles are making up the difference) and it currently has less players than Civ V... Saying VII is just like Civ VI or V just seems a bit detached and unrealistic at this point

Now does that mean Firaxis is going to immediately cut their losses and end all support for the game? No but we definitely shouldn’t be surprised if support for the game doesn’t last as long as VI’s life cycle unless they turn something around

 

[UWHabs]

I mean, VI sold an ungodly amount of copies, so at some level, it's always expected that VII would take a long time to reach there. Pandemic times also I think saw a lot of people turn to video games since people were trapped with nothing to do and nowhere to go, so VI being still in the heart of its dev cycle through that probably brought in a lot of people to that.

How many sales does VII need to sustain itself, none of us know. And what it all means for the future, that's also very up in the air. It will definitely be interesting to see once they do have this form of a classic mode, how it ends up being marketed, and how it impacts both reviews and sales. If it's enough to save the franchise, and it's not like it's a dramatic departure from the core feel of the game (it's not like they're releasing Khaleesi as a playable leader for the game), then it's good.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

They’re scrambling to respond to feedback and adding in these features, many of which are the opposite of their original vision specifically because many of their design choices didn’t land and were quite poorly received. This was already admitted in one of their dev diaries

Let's fact check your claim that they "already admitted" "many of their design choices didn't land and were quite poorly received".

They said "we took some big swings many features (Ages, Civ Switching, Commanders, Legacy Paths, Legends & Mementoes, Towns and more!). Our goal: move beyond static empire-building and into something more dynamic, where your civilization evolves and reinvents itself over time. That being said, we also hear some of these features haven't landed quite as we'd hoped in their current implementation". They never said any of their design choices were "quite poorly received". That part of your claim is false. They didn't say "many" of their design choices, they said "some" of these features. That part of your claim is false. They did say "some of these features haven't landed quite as we'd hoped in their current implementation". You are being very disingenuous by misquoting their words.

Not sure how they've "scrambling" to respond to feedback. They're clearly not in a hurry to implement the "one Civ" mode considering they referenced Civ Switching in the quote above back in June and its now November, and they won't begin working on it until 2026 once the "Firaxis Feature Workshop" is underway. Features and mechanics are always improved upon throughout a Civilization games life-cycle, and that's even more true for Civ VII considering how unfinished it was on release.

I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that the game sold “well enough” and has enough players when all estimates put its sales on its most popular platform far below Civ VI (with no basis for assuming consoles are making up the difference) and it currently has less players than Civ V... Saying VII is just like Civ VI or V just seems a bit detached and unrealistic at this point

Of course its sales are going to be below Civ VI. Civ VI has been out for over 9 years and sold 12.1m to 23.5m copies depending on the source. Did you seriously expect Civ VII to sell over 12.1m to 23.5m copies within 9 months? If you did, I think you're the only person on the planet to have expected that.

It has less players than Civ VI - yes. Civ VI already set the precedent of the newest iteration having less players than the predecessor - Civ VI had less players than Civ V for 2 years. Yes, VII also has less players than V. It's possible VI had less players than IV too for a period. We do not know as we don't have the data. Therefore VII having less players than V to begin with may also be normal for the Civ franchise.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I means enough people accepted the changes. It wouldnt be the first franchise that i liked, took a different move that i liked and i stopped playing it, while the franchise continue

It would be sad, because Civilization is the last franchise of my youth that wasnt broken in my eyes yet

But games destiny dont depend on if i like them or not

That being said, now you answer me, what do you think it means that Civ 7 had the worst launch in the entire franchise and Firaxis is doing so many things to change core features?

After Gears, Halo, Fallout and Far Cry abandoning Civ won’t even register to be honest.

Halo hit the hardest for sure.

 

[Gorbles]

That being said, now you answer me, what do you think it means that Civ 7 had the worst launch in the entire franchise and Firaxis is doing so many things to change core features?

Why do you feel the need to ask me this? It doesn't seem related to what we were talking about at all

It means VII has had the worst user-reviewed launch in the franchise, with current PC player numbers lower than VI or V. What else do you think it means?

As for changing core features, they remain mostly intact. I'd prefer it if Regroup was the default Transition setting, but they made it easier to access in the game settings and made sure your choice was remembered, so my initial annoyance at the change has been calmed quite a bit.

 

[Snowchild]

I mean, VI sold an ungodly amount of copies, so at some level, it's always expected that VII would take a long time to reach there. Pandemic times also I think saw a lot of people turn to video games since people were trapped with nothing to do and nowhere to go, so VI being still in the heart of its dev cycle through that probably brought in a lot of people to that.

How many sales does VII need to sustain itself, none of us know. And what it all means for the future, that's also very up in the air. It will definitely be interesting to see once they do have this form of a classic mode, how it ends up being marketed, and how it impacts both reviews and sales. If it's enough to save the franchise, and it's not like it's a dramatic departure from the core feel of the game (it's not like they're releasing Khaleesi as a playable leader for the game), then it's good.

That's the thing, no one is comparing VII's sales figures in a single year to VI's sales across its entire lifespan as that would be pointless and silly. However using the metrics and estimates we do know, Civ VI sold over a million copies in its first two weeks and over 2 million less about half a year after its release on steam alone.... VII's current steam estimates barely puts figures at above half of that (1.1-1.3m) after almost an entire year after its release....

Now the obvious counter-point and rebuttal here would be that VII had a multiplatform release and that we don't have estimates or figures for console, which is absolutely true. However we have no reason whatsoever to conclude that the difference in sales here has been made up by consoles especially considering PC/Steam remain the most popular platform for the series/genre with no evidence to the contrary existing.

Of course its sales are going to be below Civ VI. Civ VI has been out for over 9 years and sold 12.1m to 23.5m copies depending on the source. Did you seriously expect Civ VII to sell over 12.1m to 23.5m copies within 9 months? If you did, I think you're the only person on the planet to have expected that.

It has less players than Civ VI - yes. Civ VI already set the precedent of the newest iteration having less players than the predecessor - Civ VI had less players than Civ V for 2 years. Yes, VII also has less players than V. It's possible VI had less players than IV too for a period. We do not know as we don't have the data. Therefore VII having less players than V to begin with may also be normal for the Civ franchise.

It's humorous how you want to huff and puff about disingeniousness (while trying to split hairs semantically about the difference between "some" and "many") when you end your post with such a prime example of the very thing you're complaining about.

No Civ VI did not set the predecendant because Civ VI didn't launch with a substantially smaller peak player count than its predessecor on its most popular platform and there was never a point where it had less players than Civ IV..... which would be the more accurate comparison here than the one you're trying to make. That's without even touching upon launching to mostly negative reviews and being the worst recieved game in the series both critically and by fans.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I think this is where the idea just totally loses me.

Essentially it's boiling down your civ to a name and a badge.. and maybe one small age specific bonus (though it would probably need to be generalised across all the ages, so just one bonus across all 3, because there is no such thing as Antiquity America)

I honestly cannot get my head around the idea that people would not play Civ 7 because they don't have the ability to play the above way. I find it completely baffling. This version of the game vs 3 distinct layers that are built upon each other into a coherent end game, I just don't see what the appeal is.

The argument that 'I just want to play as America' across all 3 ages just doesn't land for me either. You could do that, it's just that instead you are taking a native route or maybe a European route to visualise what that looks like. In the end then, it really just comes down a name and a badge.

That's exactly what Ed Beach must have been thinking! Who cares if Catherine leads the Chinese or Augustus leads America? It's all the same anyway... Probably one of the largest miscalculations in PC game development history!

 

[Gorbles]

Who cares if Catherine leads the Chinese or Augustus leads America?

I care, in that I want to do it.

Who are you to tell me how the history I'm writing by playing the game should be written?